Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 13-15, 18, 19, 27, 28, 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett et al. US 2018/0223485 in view of GB 2592150 (Redfern) and Lisowski et al. US 2016/0319096.
Bennett et al. discloses a playing surface comprising:
A base structure (2). [0012].
A shock absorbing layer of cell foam (3) having a high friction top surface and
a plurality of “energy dissipating projections” (7) forming spaces therebetween that
receive the projections being compressed by running and other play time activities.
An water permeable artificial turf (4). [0017-18, 0021, 49-54].
Wherein the closed cell foam can by expanded polypropylene having a density up to 60g/L, polyurethane and/or expanded polyethylene having densities in a range of 200-
300g/L. A thickness of about 40mm and a plurality of drainage holes (12) configured for transporting surface water to said spaces between projections (7) which form channels for storing and/or drainage to the base layer. [0019-0020, 70-72]. Bennett et al. do disclose the use of polymer cell foam intermediate layer (2) comprises drainage holes (12) can be any size, shape, number or pattern “as suits the requirement of the playing surface (1)”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the shock absorbing, expanded foam layer (3) of Bennett et al. would be capable of absorbing at least 20% by volume of the surface water transported between the artificial turf layer (4) and the base layer (2).
What Bennett does not disclose is a shock absorbing underlayer having a thickness below 40mm nor the “water absorption capacity” of the foam layer. However, Redfern teaches a shock absorbing layer comprising multiple layers of open or closed cell foams each layer having a thickness of at least 10mm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the shock absorbing sports field of Bennet et al. with a shock absorbing foam layer having at least one layer at least 10mm thick in order to accommodate a specific athletic activity. Further, Bennett et al. discloses thinner foam layers may not provide adequate support to the surface layer and could break apart during use”. [0021]. And does not disclose a fiber reinforced intermediate layer. However, Lisowski et al. teach a foam composite mat comprising at least 10% MMVF, such as glass and stone wool, bound together by less than 5% binder and up to 75%
open or closed cell foam [0029]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the shock absorbing layer (3) of Bennett et al. with fiber reinforced, open or closed cell foam, as taught by Lisowski et al. in order to increase strength, service life and accommodate a variety of sporting/play events.
4. Claim(s) 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 20-26, 29, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett et al. US 2018/0223485 in view of GB 2592150 (Redfern) and Lisowski et al. US 2016/0319096 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Van Raam et al. US 2015/0259863.
Bennett et al. in view of Redfern and Lisowski et al. disclose a sports field comprising a base layer, (14) an impervious membrane (17) disposed upon the base layer, the base layer being sloped towards a water storage or transport system; an intermediate shock absorbing, fiber reinforced cell foam layer (15) and an artificial turf layer (16), see Fig. 4. But do not disclose providing a membrane between the intermediate layer (15) and the artificial turf layer (16). However, Van Raam et al. teach a sports field structure, including a plurality of membranes (3, 34), made of natural or glass fibers and having a plurality of openings for drainage therethrough, or impervious, disposed between a substructure (2) and a base element (10), between the base element (10) and a top layer (38). [0028, 32-35, 40, 43-45]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sports field of Bennett et al. in view of Redfern and Lisowski et al. with upper and lower membrane layers, as taught by Van Raam in order to control surface water drainage/storage.
With respect to claims 6-12, 16, 17, 20-26, 29, 30 Bennett et al. in view of Redfern and Lisowski et al. disclose a sports field comprising a base layer, (14) an impervious membrane (17) disposed upon the base layer, an intermediate, shock absorbing, fiber reinforced cell foam layer (15) and an artificial turf layer (16), see Fig. 4. But do not disclose a water storing deck element disposed upon the base/substructure. However, Van Raam teaches a sports field comprising:
A base structure (10) defining a deck (12). [0033].
A membrane (34) disposed on the deck. [0043].
A water-regulating layer (38A) in the form or a mat of rockwool, glasswool or
natural fibers depending on the intended water retention needs. [0042-43].
A permeable cover layer (41), such as artificial turf. [0045].
A plurality of wick members (39) communicating fluidly between the water regulating
layer (38A) and the base (10).
Wherein base modules of the base structure are placed on top of a substructure which is fluid tight, having an impervious membrane (3) disposed thereon. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sports field of Bennett et al. in view of Redfern and Lisowski et al. with the water storing deck modules taught by Van Raam in order to optimize playing conditions of the surface in all weather conditions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/8/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-33 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Redfern.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND W ADDIE whose telephone number is (571)272-6986. The examiner can normally be reached on m-f 7:30-12:30, then 6-9pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chris Sebesta can be reached on 571-272-0547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAYMOND W ADDIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 9/26/2025